Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 5, 2012 6:30am-7:00am PDT

6:30 am
concurrence between both the planning commission and the hpc stakeholders. it is really positive to see how far we have come. my e-mail -- we are very supportive of the way this language as currently drafted. we believe that making the secretary of standards mandatory for contrary to in buildings is appropriate, while leaving flexibility for non contributors and other parcels of strikes a very good balance. we are also supportive of having the city develop its interpretations and guidelines for the secretary of interior standards and having those adopted by the hpc and the planning commission. the planning commission was
6:31 am
balancing all of these provisions that it holds. i would urge you to move this draft as amended by supervisor weiner forward and we look forward to supporting it at the full board. thank you. >> thank you. mr. buehler? >> my name is mike buehler, executive director of stanton's -- san princess for architectural heritage. it has been nearly one year since the committee convened on historic preservation last may. and in a green with past speakers we have made tremendous progress since that time. we have been able to reach agreement on the majority of
6:32 am
issues. but like to take tough -- i would like to thank staff and others for their hard work at that time. however, there are issues that will take extra time to resolve. those are outlined in our letter. would like to make a survey of owners and occupants. we would like the planning commission to have an appropriate role in commenting on, but not veto authority over the historic preservation commission. who would also like to require the board to bresler to consider their views of both owners and documents -- require the board to consider the views of both
6:33 am
owners and occupants. there are several outstanding questions that we believe warrant further study. first of all, the proposed language has not been considered by either the preservation commission or the planning commission and its current form. we have questions about what type of state and local funding would qualify for the exemption. how many units are in the proposed development that would qualify for an exemption and how do we comply with the standards and the proposed exemption? >> thank you.
6:34 am
>> i am here on behalf of the san francisco housing coalition. we, too, what like to ask you to move this forward and we want to commend the great work the planning staff has done on this. we have been tracking this for about three years now. when it first emerged there were issues that simply cause us concern, since it appeared that our historic resources were less as a city to address the change and challenge that we need to do. certainly that is produced in the amount of housing that we need. we think it has made enormous strides since then and we like the idea of economic hardship will robust the world since they
6:35 am
of competing views on it. we think it should not be delayed any longer. please, move it forward. >> good afternoon. i am the executive director of the a. philip randolph institute here in say diego. i'm here to speak to families that are blue-collar workers and working class and ethnic communities. i would like to see this sort culture influences the city and reserves of four children's children and the generations that follow, so they can be proud of the city they grow up in. i would like to ask the board to consider an inclusive approach that addresses community interests and protects residents affected by the preservation efforts.
6:36 am
i think it is important to consider the voices of residents that would be affected by preservation and i support the proposed idea to allow residents to vote to create an historic district in that area. i'm also in support of an economic hardship waiver. in conclusion, i would like to ask to support today's proposed historic preservation plan, and these safeguards for the committee, and move forward. thank you. >> my name is debora neiman and i'm here representing myself and my sisters. we own an old house and a mission. we are here to support the efforts for historic preservation. historic preservation can be a
6:37 am
noble thing to do, but the codes and laws governing its are confusing, and the rights of property owners within a potential historic district are not always easy to understand and require time and effort, and in some cases, the hiring of an attorney to figure out what in means and what designation's it has for the homeowners in a district. i'm here to give our support for the supervisors amendments, which require an outreach to owners within potential historic districts with the goal of participation of 50% of the owners with in that district. i would actually vote for more than 50% or dissipation, but this is a start to modify the code is so the strong efforts are made to all property owners within a designated district.
6:38 am
thank you supervisor for initiating these changes. i urge the committee to accept all of his changes and the gold code. thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is richard solomon. my dear wife and i own a six wonderful san francisco apartment buildings but none of which are currently in historic districts. and our home is no. let -- is a landmark #190. we are greatly affected by these amendments. due to time constraints i will talk about one aspect.
6:39 am
woeful interpretation of the secretary of interior standards. this is the big one and it affects all the others. san francisco is famous for its victorian architecture. a substantial portion is more modern. but a vast amount of it was covered over with stucco and shindell as it is today. many people desire to restore them to their victorian glory. but there are those in the positions of authority that will that in the absolute historical photographic evidence. it is not acceptable to restore historical exterior by educated guesswork or by copying a building in another obligation.
6:40 am
many of us in the hands on local restoration and preservation of the community believe those results were not the intention of the standards nor are they good public policy. hopefully, our new local guidelines will help this common problem. the broad input into the guidelines will produce the best results, which must include input from the planning commission. >> my name is joseph butler. i'm an architect here in the city. and with the product -- the passage of prop. j., of voters in san francisco gave a metaphorical vote. balance is a funny word. hopefully not deleting the views
6:41 am
of occupants. when you delete exemptions or provide exemptions for affordable housing projects. balance means that the preservationists are back on a chair in the hallway outside the room were policy-makers are guiding development. while i appreciate the distance we have come in amending these articles 10 and 11 from where they began, those three items still need to be addressed and we should leave the interpretation to the hpc. we should not have a written vote simply by nonparticipating.
6:42 am
balance is funny when you finally get a seat at the table and your the sponsoring party of the legislation say it is time to step back. qáá)p&e%ei that is putting us out in the hall again. please, amend these amendments to move preservation forward, not backward. >> i will call some additional names. daniel. espinola. if there is anyone use -- whose name has not been called. i called you a while back. you can, and anytime you want.
6:43 am
>> i am a former member of the landmarks preservation board. remember that? i want to point out that the lpab adopted the secretary standards in 1984. the city has been using them for -- what does that make it? going on 25 years. i do not think they have held us back. the city commission is sorry that prop j. passed in the form that it did because all of these things are used to reduce the effectiveness of the preservation commission. i suggest you take the advice of the preservation commission as to which of these amendments to
6:44 am
accept. another consideration is that this historic preservation costs money. old buildings were built better and they are cheaper to maintain the new buildings. and i should know. by design new buildings. finally, one trip be concerned not to wander too far in the interpretations of the standards. we are still dependent on some of our restriction money. finally, it feels to me that the voting for the district's are designated and i'm very much afraid that would have that effect. please delete out one.
6:45 am
thanks. >> good afternoon. i'm not here on behalf of any client, but wanted to speak to some of my general experiences and impressions over the last few years. it is three and a half years since we have had an ordinance that matches up with members of the public about clear guidance. it is a situation i creates a tremendous amount of confusion. it is confusion that is certainly great for clarity. it lends itself to arbitrariness. this ordinance is long overdue and i strongly you -- strongly
6:46 am
encourage you to support it. i also want to speak to the san francisco specific preservation standards. we do live in a dense city and we want to concentrate growth near downtown. we may find it inappropriate intemperances or to allow all high-rise buildings in the proximity to small-scale historic buildings. i think this is an important issue for the future of the city. this is an appropriate change and i strongly encourage you to support this ordinance. >> i am a past president and current board member of the neighborhood association. as some of you know, the neighborhood association has been working to create an historic district in the oldest neera in san francisco.
6:47 am
is the sub area of the mission district, named after mission laura's church. there are two main issues i have with the proposed legislation i am very concerned about. in reference to standards, i think you should base anything related to the historic resources should be related to standards. we do not want the city to be putting bulb outs up and down the street. supervisor weiner thinks they would create safety, and we strongly disagree with that.
6:48 am
we strongly oppose the part of his legislation. in reference to scott weiner's response that it is all preservation, that is all relative. we are going to the national register. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a member of the staff for the cisco -- the san pentico preservation organization among others. you have received a chart that lists the differences between the positions of articles 10 and 11 and legislation that the planning commission has forwarded to you. as a 40-year resident of san francisco, as an owner of a city landmark, and one that has been
6:49 am
actively helping to preserve our city's historic resources, i urge you to support the historic preservation position on all items. for example, i will just call out one item. why, i ask you, should the planning department be required to conduct a written vote of owners and occupants in a proposed historic district, or i conservation district? why iswhat are historic district singled out? why not a survey of all the efforts of the planning department? that would be equitable and burdensome. but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, is it not? i would urge you to resort to the historic preservation
6:50 am
commission if wording -- preservation commission have wording -- commission's wor ding. lead the flexibility to the planning department to decide how to get public input to take the temperature of the residents and arguments, so to speak. i also urge you to give heed to commissioner martinez's remarks about the economic hardship item, rather than using a one- size-fits, all. chairperson mar: the chart you gave us -- where did this come from? who supports this tax >> -- who supports this? >> it is derived from san francisco heritage and the san francisco preservation consortium.
6:51 am
thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is paul wermer. i am fortunate. i had many relatives and friends in europe who visit here. what brings them to san francisco, what they love about this city, is the human scale and in neighborhood character. it is precious, and it brings people here. that historic character is her important. it is very easy to destroy it. and it is very easy to, in the guise of making it easy to do a renovation, to do serious damage to the neighborhood character. for that reason, i am urging you to incorporate the recommendations of the historic preservation commission, as
6:52 am
martinez stated, and the recommendations of the heritage advisers. i should note that there is a lot of discussion about the cost impact. what i would like to observe is we have a lot of very expensive repairs needed, because people are not, for whatever reason, doing the basic maintenance that is necessary to keep the building in shape. lots of discussion about demolition by neglect. this is a very real issue. if we are serious about the cost impact on the lower-income communities, it might be very well worth while looking at how to integrate that with historic preservation, by making sure there is appropriate maintenance
6:53 am
early in the process, before it becomes costly, burdensome, and requires destruction of the historic character to make it affordable. thank you. supervisor wiener: let me call the final two cards -- harold wong and roland salvado. if you wish to speak and i have not called your name, please fill out a yellow card. >> my name is ima horton, and i am with speak, in the outer sunset. i am pleased with the implementation of proposition j. however, i am mostly concerned about two provisions which do not seem to be in the spirit of contemporary good preservation practice. i urge you to delete these provisions. the first issue is the proposal that local interpretations of
6:54 am
the secretary of the interior should be introduced and considered in project approvals. we have faired well with the standards of the secretary so far. it is applicable in the united states, and i do not see any obvious need for local interpretations. local flavor can be added in the design guidelines for individual historic districts and then be considered for each district, because of district adjustment is too different to be covered by a general interpretation. the second is the requirement of obtaining the majority of property owners to consent in writing. we have initiated a survey of the former oceanside neighborhood in the greater sense that. i have been notifying all the
6:55 am
property owners and tenants. i received a mailing list from the department. but with the tenants, a lot of the notification came back as undeliverable, and i do not even know how to reach these people. this is the official record from the assessor's office. it will be extremely costly to get these 50% written signatures. thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you. ms. jackson. >> aspin knowledge jackson -- espinola jackson, district 10. i have been too many meetings at city planning. i would like to say i was at all of them. thank you for the proposal you have. a lot of the concerns i have are
6:56 am
in there. when you started off, you said there had to be some common space, and it is no different than what your meeting was a few weeks ago. you were ready to go to the full board. i hope the body today passes on this legislation, because it is much needed, and i will not have to come to another meeting about my house. i think some of your legislation was dealing with my home, and the fact that a lot of us in san francisco -- i have been in bayview hunters point since 1948. i have been a homeowner is 1968. a lot of us who retired do not get $20,000 a year. i am glad you have looked out for our benefit. thank you very much for helping
6:57 am
us seniors. supervisor wiener: thank you. >> good afternoon. i was just telling my friend my own footprints when i was a baby are in the cement. i hope that are still there in the backyard. i will have to take a look some time. ♪ i was born in this city and my poor mother worked the city mines i hope you will give us a historic dime and i do believe i want to preserve forever more going down that old stony end i always wanted to go and i want to preserve forever and ever ever, ever, ever more
6:58 am
i want to fix the stony end and fix it up ♪ i see president peskin over there. ♪ welcome back let there be you let there be me let there be swimming in the ocean and historic sea but there be birds flying high with the dove let there be historic love the call the president flipper swimming in the bay won't you reserve it all for him and me flipper lives in a world full of
6:59 am
laughter slowing in the ocean ♪ supervisor wiener: thank you, mr. paulson. mr. wong? >> howard wong. i do not sing, but i did stand on the opera house stage, when i replace the wooden stage floor. that was interesting. i am here to support architectural heritage i's and e hpc's recommendations regarding articles 10 and 11. as an architect, i have worked on shopping centers, hotels, commercial and institutional buildings, as well as renovations and historic preservation. for many of these projects or all of these projects, there are many codes that